Should not read too much into media articles. Singapore did review Su-35s, Typhoons and Rafales as fighter replacement potential back in year 2005 but for the F-16 replacement, the consistent message are F-35s.

The only real questions are A or Bs, where they will be based, where these will be built and how many.

More recent speculation is the selection of BAE instead of SAIC for the USMC amph vehicle replacement, the AETP growth options, the Israeli F-35A buys, the difficulties faced at Cameri, may influence the decision to the cheaper A. 2030 will see AETP as a production option.

Some groundwork has already been done with 2% rate hike in GST/VAT that can fund a 3 squadron buy plus development needs. A new airbase is being built in the east. The Israeli buy would mean inter-operability between the G550 and F-35 will be resolved. The new JMMS vessel is being messaged to operate helos, not fixed wing.

The B cannot be ruled out. The island marine environment could mean more emphasis on corrosion protection (delivery acceptance of A was due to corrosion issues). The growing ability of potential aggressors to suppress airfields. The A330s can refuel 2 B rather than 1 A at a time. The interoperability with UK including on their CVs and USMC amphs. The lack of airspace (low speed short take-off requirements) continues in B’s favour.

'weasel1962' said: "...The island marine environment could mean more emphasis on corrosion protection (delivery acceptance of A was due to corrosion issues)…."

This is a furphy (not exactly accurate rumour). All F-35 variant aircraft have been made to the same standard as well as the engines (corrosion proofedwise). It was just happenstance that some of the recent F-35As were manufactured with a corrosion process not carried out on a 'hole or two'. This oversight will be remedied in due course and - of course - the manufacturing process has been changed to amend this error for future aircraft. The only wrangle was 'who was going to pay for the repair to existing aircraft' - this has been sorted to the satisfaction of all concerned.

In other words every F-35 variant could sail on the flat deck anywhere -even if only as deck cargo for some - with the same corrosion protection. IF Singapore needs more corrosion protection than already provided I guess they can pay extra and sort out what extra needs to be done. GO FOR IT SINGERS.

I hear you. It is also clear that USN and USAF have different corrosion prevention standards. Agree that the F-35 regardless of variant will probably be qualified to the same location requirements but how about maintenance?

If someone buys the A, would they use airforce or navy standards? I would think its hard to change the impression that the Navy probably has more experience dealing with corrosion in marine or at sea environs.

“In the market you can only choose what is out there,” he added. “When air forces are choosing replacements, the usual suspects come up: Whether it’s the (European) Typhoons, F-35s, (Russian) Sukhois or Chinese-made stealth fighters.”

Heheh. Has one forgotten the FIRST F-35A Base is at where? What kind of environment is there? Do they wash down their aircraft after flight? Oh My Gosh Golly. By the By do the Singas aircraft get washed down after every flight? Anyway yes there are standards and standards but why not have good corrosion prevention in every service. (I've yet to read cited PDF). Already a USN corrosion maintenance PDF has been cited elsewhere here. Preventative maintenance will be the cornerstone of any modern military aircraft where ever it is to be flown. The goody gumdrops have operationally tested the three variants at Eielson AFB in Alaska in WINTER. How corrosive is that with the runway being de-iced. I guess SALT is not used but whatever. This BLEEDin' Aircraft has been tested, is being tested, will be tested frontwards & backwards.

Nice PDF. 05 Oct 2012 Second last page says this:

"Summary The F-35 has a comprehensive corrosion prevention program Leveraged legacy aircraft design lessons learnedIntegrated the best processes from Navy and Air Force standards Focused on early assessment of materials in an operational environment Maintains active engagement in technology development communities

Corrosion has been a consideration for the Singapore air force in all aircraft acquisitions since the A-4. The only AH-64 crash in Singapore was ironically caused by corrosion. Things as minute as tropical fungus which cause corrosion are the strange quirks of aircraft maintenance in the tropics.

However some aircraft are designed to be operated in a sea water tropical environment - TAHDAH! - the F-35 Family, knocking them dead at Eglin AFB Florida and MCAS Beaufort on the East Coast and onboard somewhere off Japan & by the sea at MCAS Iwakuni no less. Deal with it. Kiwi A-4Ks were transported on deck wrapped in plastic, not uncommon because our A4Gs were transported in a similar way. All kinds of 'corrosion control' existed in my day, it was a fact of life.

The F-35 program has a more robust corrosion design largely due to inclusion of more stringent Navy corrosion qualification tests;...

The study also includes more generic factors that could potentially contribute to corrosion in other weapon systems. These factors are related to current acquisition practices, the application of lessons learned from legacy systems, lack of Air Force expertise with corrosion, and lack of Navy expertise with low-observable technology.

This was as late as 2011. Not everything can be resolved with just a bird bath.